Blovario's conclusion is correct. But he's only half right in how he got there. Nevertheless 50% is better than 0%.

I disagree that his conclusion is correct. I think in the cases where judges decided to opine in 2016 they signaled that a person who is born abroad to at least one US citizen parent is eligible if they meet the other qualifications.

Apuzzo wrote:Thank you for sharing that with us. I agree with John Vlahoplus in part. I agree with him that a child born out of the United States to one or even two U.S. citizen parents who are out of the country for private reasons is not a U.S. citizen under the common law, but rather can only be a naturalized citizen under a naturalization Act of Congress, and that therefore such child is not nor can he or she be a natural born citizen under the Constitution. I disagree with how he dismisses the relevance (requirement) of the birth parents ("jus sanguinis") in the natural born citizen definition.

As you know, my years of research and litigation in the courts has led me to the conclusion that there are two elements in the definition of a natural born citizen under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution and therefore under the Constitution, i.e., (1) birth or reputed birth in the country (2) to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. While the 14th Amendment could have changed this definition, it did not. Nor can any Act of Congress supplant it.

1. "Reputed birth" in the United States? Apuzzo's being too clever for himself.
2. His years of litigation in the courts led to ... Apuzzo losing. Every. Single. Time.

I wonder if Apuzzo even read Vlahoplus' conclusion:

[Lee] relies on Vattel, although there is no evidence that Americans relied on Vattel for purposes of defining citizenship in the Constitution.

Or even the first page:

The Supreme Court has long held that the English common law provides the constitutional definition of "natural born."

University of Richmond School of Law Professor Kevin C. Walsh proposes ridding our Constitution of its “natural born Citizen” clause. See his article, “The ‘Irish Born’[*] One American Citizenship Amendment,” here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3165238 . Professor Walsh writes that the original Constitution is not perfect and it is time to change its actual text. In that connection, he advocates that naturalized American citizens should be eligible to be President. He states: “There are not two classes of American citizenship, just one. It is time to repeal the Natural Born Citizen Clause.” People have posted comments to his article and Mr. Walsh addresses them here

1. Question: If very few people care much about this amendment, why would anyone sponsor it?

Walsh wrote:Putting aside the fact that it is good for America generally, uses include: (1) deflection of false “anti-immigrant” accusations based on a lawmaker’s stance against illegal immigration; (2) attraction of votes from naturalized citizens and their friends; (3) rejection of “blood and soil” nationalism.

Apuzzo wrote:We are supposed to believe without any explanation that this amendment would be “good for America generally.” To avoid “’anti-immigrant’ accusations,” we are told we need to change our presidential eligibility by getting rid of the natural born citizen clause, a clause that the Framers included in the Constitution for national security’s sake. We are also told to change our presidential eligibility so that some unstated person or party can garner more votes at the polls. And the best of all, Mr. Walsh tells us that removing the natural born citizen clause will get rid of “’blood and soil’ nationalism” from American politics. In his actual article, he calls it “’blood and soil’ white nationalism.” In that article he also says that politicians should be amendable to advocating getting rid of the natural born citizen clause to give the appearance of not being anti-immigrant(“easy inoculation against the virulent accusation of being anti-immigrant”) and not being associated with people who advocate such a bad idea. His plan for getting the amendment accomplished is for Democrats to set up Republican to do the job for them. His scheme is for two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to propose the amendment, led by Republicans who for the sake of winning elections should want to give voters the appearance that they are not anti-immigrant or racists and supported by Democrats who are already on board. It looks like in Mr. Walsh’s world, there should be no problem with “Russian collusion.” Did it ever occur to Mr. Walsh that blood and soil is what makes a nation state and that it is the energy which when used properly keeps people free?

2. Question: What about competing loyalties to country of birth for a candidate who is a naturalized citizen?

Walsh wrote:Let’s remember we’re only talking about eligibility. Presumably voters can decide about allegiance. And there’s no good reason to treat circumstances of birth as a reliable proxy. (The Manchurian Candidate was born in the United States.) With respect to competing loyalties more generally, the naturalization process requires a choice and newly naturalized Americans are akin to converts.

Apuzzo wrote:What Professor Walsh does not address is the question of whether it is voters or parties who produce our elected leaders. He should examine why the Framers guaranteed the States a republican form of government and gave us the Electoral College as part of the process for electing our President and Commander in Chief. If voters without more can in the heat and partisanship of an election be trusted to make the right decision about who shall be the single person to wield not only the executive power, but also all our military power, then why even have a Constitution or even laws? Will Professor Walsh next be advocating getting rid of our republican form of government and replace it with mob rule? He states that citizenship is no guarantee of allegiance. If the natural born citizen clause is to die because it is not a guarantee of loyalty, then why have the age and residency eligibility requirements or any requirements for that matter? Finally, he tells us that a naturalized person is as loyal as a natural born citizen because naturalization requires “a choice.” What he fails to tell us is what exactly is that choice and how does it relate to allegiance to the United States.

Needless to say, I am not impressed with the reasons that Mr. Walsh puts forth for justifying his proposal to remove the natural born citizen clause from presidential eligibility and ultimately from the Constitution. The Framers inserted the clause into the Constitution to assure that the constitutional republic would be preserved by requiring that the nation be led in international relations and military combat by a person who had undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States. For those reasons, the clause is worth preserving.

* * *

The debate on the meaning of a natural born citizen continues. It will not end until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the merits of the meaning of the clause. In the meantime, we should keep the natural born citizen clause right were it is, in our Constitution.

And, of course:

While I am at it, I might as well again state what my position is on the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen. My years of research and litigation in the courts have led me to the conclusion that the definition of a natural born citizen comes from natural law and that under that law, which was codified into the law of nations, a natural born citizen is a child who becomes a member of society (“citizen”) at birth by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone and therefore needs no positive law to make or deem him or her a citizen. . . . .

Scholars and professors who have been publishing papers on the meaning of a natural born citizen argue whether place of birth or parentage is necessary or sufficient to make one a natural born subject. They fail to understand that these two elements are both necessary and sufficient to make one a natural born citizen.

And an actual update:

New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin, in my latest New Jersey ballot challenges against Senator Ted Cruz, found in 2016 that English and U.S. naturalization Acts were incorporated into and became part of English and therefore U.S. common law and that therefore under that “common law,” a child born out of the United States to two or even one U.S. citizen parent is a natural born citizen. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," ALJ Masin wrote. The full decision can be read here: . . . I objected to this position and holding, arguing that if it were correct that American common law had been so transformed by such statutes and such common law formed the basis of the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen, then all of Congress’s naturalization Acts since the beginning of our nation have been unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ruled on the meaning of U.S. citizenship and interpreted those Acts throughout the centuries, has gotten it wrong. . . . [If] ALJ Masin is correct, [the Fourteenth Amendment], along with the Fifth Amendment, can also be used as a basis for arguing that Congress has since the beginning of our nation violated the Constitution by not recognizing the natural born citizen status of all children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. Neither ALJ Masin nor the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed my observation and objection.

I recall Apuzzo had appealed the ALJ's decision, but he never said what happened after that.

* Walsh is publishing his article on the sesquicentennial anniversary of the first proposed amendment to eliminate the natural-born-citizen clause. (The Irish were "the animals" then.)

Apuzzo wrote:You said when speaking of Minor v. Happersett (1875) “The court added that it remained unclear as to whether or not those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents qualify as ‘natural born.’”

The Court did not say that doubts existed as to whether children born in the country to alien parents were “natural born.” Rather, it said: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” Minor, at 167-68. The Court added that as to those born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, being natural born citizens, there was never any doubt that they were citizens. The doubt was whether children born in the country to alien parents were “citizens,” not whether they were “natural born citizens.” The Court gave the definition of the latter and under that definition children born in the country to alien parents could not be natural born citizens. Given the new Fourteenth Amendment, they could be citizens, but Minor, given that Virginia Minor was born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, did not have to resolve that question.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), Wong was born in the U.S. to alien parents. Hence, the Court had to answer the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. It held that those children, born to resident aliens domiciled in the U.S., were citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that they were natural born citizens.

Apuzzo wrote:You said when speaking of Minor v. Happersett (1875) “The court added that it remained unclear as to whether or not those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents qualify as ‘natural born.’”

The Court did not say that doubts existed as to whether children born in the country to alien parents were “natural born.” Rather, it said: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” Minor, at 167-68. The Court added that as to those born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, being natural born citizens, there was never any doubt that they were citizens. The doubt was whether children born in the country to alien parents were “citizens,” not whether they were “natural born citizens.” The Court gave the definition of the latter and under that definition children born in the country to alien parents could not be natural born citizens. Given the new Fourteenth Amendment, they could be citizens, but Minor, given that Virginia Minor was born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, did not have to resolve that question.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), Wong was born in the U.S. to alien parents. Hence, the Court had to answer the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. It held that those children, born to resident aliens domiciled in the U.S., were citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that they were natural born citizens.

Mario conveniently forgot to mention that Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898) (C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)

Apuzzo wrote:You said when speaking of Minor v. Happersett (1875) “The court added that it remained unclear as to whether or not those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents qualify as ‘natural born.’”

The Court did not say that doubts existed as to whether children born in the country to alien parents were “natural born.” Rather, it said: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” Minor, at 167-68. The Court added that as to those born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, being natural born citizens, there was never any doubt that they were citizens. The doubt was whether children born in the country to alien parents were “citizens,” not whether they were “natural born citizens.” The Court gave the definition of the latter and under that definition children born in the country to alien parents could not be natural born citizens. Given the new Fourteenth Amendment, they could be citizens, but Minor, given that Virginia Minor was born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, did not have to resolve that question.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), Wong was born in the U.S. to alien parents. Hence, the Court had to answer the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. It held that those children, born to resident aliens domiciled in the U.S., were citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that they were natural born citizens.

Mario conveniently forgot to mention that Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898) (C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)

I suspect that Mr. Chief Justice Fuller was not lamenting the legal aspects, but rather the fact that a non-white could be eligible to be president.

Mario conveniently forgot to mention that Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:

He also neglects to mention that CJ Waite swore in Chester Arthur whose father was not a citizen when he was born. I guess Waite forgot what he said.

I think Mario's response would be that Waite was left with no choice because of the circumstances. He will back up this claim with absolutely no proof. Apparently, it was so highly secretive that nobody bothered to mention that Waite had broken his own ruling.

North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Apuzzo wrote:Barack Obama’s publicist’s bio, which Obama undoubtedly helped write, said that Obama was born in Kenya. Obama’s then-literary agent, Acton & Dystel, published in 1991 in Obama’s bio that promoted his book for public sales that Obama “was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” The bio was in circulation for 16 years and no one, including Obama, ever saw fit to correct it.

Are we to believe that Obama did not contribute, approve, or even look at his own “bio” which his publicist included in its marketing materials for purposes of selling his book, Journeys in Black and White (which Obama abandoned) and which plainly stated that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii?”

Here is the full text of the booklet which the publicist published in 1991:

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

Jay Acton “indicated that while ‘almost nobody’ wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom ‘the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis,’ were ‘probably’ approached to approve the text as presented.” Id.

Maybe someone can tell us what sources Acton & Dystel relied upon to include that personal information and what steps it took to produce the biographies of eighty-nine other authors that Acton & Dystel represented and which were included in the same marketing booklet in 1991. And let us not forget that the same bio was public for 16 years, even as Obama was running for public office as a state and U.S. Senator.

Finally, I am not aware of any media source asking Obama about his publicist’s bio and how it came to be that she wrote in the booklet that he was born in Kenya.

If Obama was not born in Kenya, what could explain this bio is that Obama thought that lying about being born in Kenya gave him some benefit in getting ahead of others.

Are we to believe that Obama did not contribute, approve, or even look at his own “bio” which his publicist included in its marketing materials for purposes of selling his book, Journeys in Black and White (which Obama abandoned) and which plainly stated that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii?”

Blovario Apuzzo is intentionally obtuse. The answer to the question which runs the first 17 words of this paragraph is obviously "no" and is explained by the next 21 words, especially the highlighted words.

Yes we are to believe that Obama never looked at that Bio, because no-one else did until he was President, and there was at least one other major error on the same page: The number of Tip ONeill's years as speaker of the House. I don't see O'Neill getting that wrong, and Apuzzo always dodged that whenever I brought it up in the debates he had with me.

But then, this guy had never heard of Wonk Kim Ark till someone brought it up on a Radio show.

doG how I wish these folks were stuck in the same nursing home arguing amongst themselves for years and years and years...

That would be pleasant for them. I'd rather they each live out their lives in loneliness and agony, with nobody else who agrees with their lies, and the whole world ignoring them.

Look at Blovario, stuck in that ugly house in Noo Joysey, his "both parents must be citizens" bullshit is so thoroughly destroyed and irrelevant that he spends his time obsessing about the Acton & Dystel bio. "And if Obama wasn't born in Kenya, that bio still proves he's evil, sniff, sniff, boo hoo!"

Nobody reads or comments on his blog. He's reduced to writing comments on the P&E, which only the last few diehard birthers (and bob) will ever see.

So what comes first - Rondoodoo dies of old age and bad karma, and Blovario can't even post comments there, or Blovario dies alone and wretched along with the other remaining 11 or 12 birthers, and Rondoodoo has no comments to "publish"?

Its a very Greek idea of hell. All he has to do to walk out of the hell is simply admit that he is wrong. But for the sake of bieng a big man to 12 other people on the planet he will gladly sit in hell.

Its a very Greek idea of hell. All he has to do to walk out of the hell is simply admit that he is wrong. But for the sake of bieng a big man to 12 other people on the planet he will gladly sit in hell.

Very very true.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.